Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:23, 15 October 2005 view sourcePBS (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled116,854 edits →Should Current notices be in a sub page ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:07, 10 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,775 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive 36) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-protected}}
	==Archives==
			{{talkheader\|wp=yes\|noarchive=yes\|search=no\|shortcut=\|WT:RM}}
	* ]
			{{tmbox\|text='''NOTE:''' This is '''not''' the place to request moves.</big> Please follow the instructions given on the ]. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the ].}}
	* ]
			{{notice\|1=Please use the ''']''' process for contested move request closes.}}
	* ]
	* ]		{{central\|text=most subpages of ] that are unused have talk pages that redirect here.}}
			{{old moves
			\| list =
			*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, '''No consensus''', ]
			*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, '''Not moved''', ]
			*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Articles for renaming, '''Not moved''', ]
			*RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Requested title changes, '''Not moved''', ]
			}}
			<!-- {{bots\|allow=Cluebot III,MiszaBot I,MiszaBot II}} -->
			<inputbox>
			type=search
			namespaces=Talk
			break=no
			default=insource:move intitle:
			searchbuttonlabel=Search for "move"
			</inputbox>
			<inputbox>
			type=search
			namespaces=Talk
			break=no
			default=insource:"requested move" intitle:
			searchbuttonlabel=Search for "requested move"
			</inputbox>
			{{center\|Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search"}}
			{{center\|Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search}}

			{{archive box\|search=yes\|bot=lowercase sigmabot III\|age=30\|index=/Archive index\|auto=short\|
	For the page history of any text before this time stamp please see the Archives ] 16:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
			*] (2005)
			*For why RM was created, see:
			**]
			{{cot\|Archives by date\|bg=#e0d2a3\|bg2=#f8eabb}}
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			#]
			{{cob}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 225K
			\|counter = 36
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(30d)
			\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive %(counter)d
			}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index
			\|mask=/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes}}

			== Move ] to ] ==
	==Footnote regarding the correct implementation of approval voting==

			The them "]" previously served as the title of a disambiguation page, currently at ]. However, it currently redirects to ] as this seems to be the primary use of the term as information about ] seems to be sparse and out of date. Secondary sources indicate the Minnesota institution might actually be named "Virginia Secondary School". ] (]) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	I do not think it is necessary.
	* Because if there are only two options by far the most common then the 60% rule is enough.
	* I think the wording above is very confusing. This idea that a bank proposal should be added does not make sense to me.
	* Details of how approval voting is done is coverd by the link to that page. It does not have to be duplicated possibly incorrectly on this page ] 11:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

			:First reaction is that this was a bad idea to change before discussing it, but that is still acceptable. At the very least, you need a hat note so people can find the other school, and them I would suggest opening a RM formally for the Minnesota school, given that passes, then that would clear the way for an RM to make the school in Virgina for probably PT and drop the PARENDIS. Either way theirs is a question for discussion if the PrimaryRedirect is appropriate. ] ] 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	Of course the footnote is necessary, while preventing people to try and steer votes like you did on ]. No offense intended, I can perfectly see this happened in good faith. Why I'm nonetheless defending correct application of the procedure as it was fixed after long, and not always easy, debate above, is that a wishy-washy application of the procedure will probably (as usual) not be able to come nearer to a solution accepted by many parties over a longer period of time. And is that not what we want most? Or is this really about trying to prove ''right'' whatever the cost? I'd really think sorry you'd lose your taste for wikipedia over that in the end, while, indeed, I'd think that the consequence of not trying to solve issues by a ''consensus'' type of approach. --] 12:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
			::Broadly agree; it's not worth reverting the dab move just yet, but an RM will certainly make sure there is consensus that it ''was'' the right move. ] (]) 14:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It looks like @] performed a revert of the redirect, so it now goes to the DAB page once again. @] if you still believe the move has merit, you're welcome to start a ] discussion in the appropriate way. ] ] 14:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Move ] to ] in place of redirect page ==
	== Polling for requested page move ==

			<nowiki>{{</nowiki>'''subst''':'''requested move'''\|VP-40\|reason=The current page for the modern squadron VP-40 occupies the page VP-40 (1951-Present). It should be moved to the page VP-40 to match the uniformity of other squadron pages however ]<nowiki> is currently a redirect page}}</nowiki> ] (]) 04:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:See ] for the previous discussion on this issue.

			:@]: This is because there are/were two squadrons by the name ]. So, the squadron meeting ] criteria will stay at ], the other will be disambiguated using the parentheses. You will need to present a case of why the current VP-40 is the primary topic over the older one. Then, the other editors will deliberate over it, and a conclusion will be reached. <span class="nowrap">—''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 18:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Kim Bruning edited WP:RM removing the votes line in the "Create a place for discussion" on the talk page so leaving only one section.I presume under the noble wikipedia idea ]. With only a discussion section recommended one of the first controversial pages formatted this way became confusing. See the history of ] ]

			== Request: Implement a form for requests at ] ==
	Ohkay, if you have to, but people had added a poll that wasn't according to polling guidelines. Actually are you sure you want to normally have a poll there by default? That's kinda broken. ] 16:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

			As part of my work at ], I review a lot of redirects, often working from the back of the queue. Pages which are turned into redirects by users who are not autopatrolled are automatically put into the queue for review, and I find a lot of cut and paste moves happening, which I of course revert and leave warnings about. These aren't just from newer users either unfortunately, and I've been thinking for a while that it could be easier to request page moves.
	In my opinion, Support-Oppose is a good guideline, rather than looser guidelines. But the wording could be changed, e.g "vote -> opinion". I'll make such example (and if you are dissatisfied, you of course reverse). ] 16:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

			Which leads me to my suggestion: There should be a form, similar to those at ] (]), to make requesting the moves simpler and more straightforward. Let's face it, some people are offput by trying to use the template, and why not make life easier? I believe this would reduce the issues we have with cut and paste moves and make it easier to direct newer users to make such requests. Suggested fields would be current page title, target page title, reason for move.
	<div style="font-name:arial;background-color:#eeeeee;width:480px;margin:0px 0px 0px 10px;float:none;border:1px solid #888888;padding:10px">
	<nowiki>==Requested move==</nowiki>

			I'd also be for making requested moves easier in a similar fashion, because I do think we'd make Misplaced Pages easier to get into with more form usage, but I figure one step at a time. ] (]) 15:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	''<nowiki>The reasons for move copied from the entry on the ] page</nowiki>''<br>
	<nowiki>===Polling===</nowiki><br>
	<nowiki>:''Add '''Support''' or '''Oppose''' followed by an explanation of your opinion, then sign your opinion with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''</nowiki>

	<nowiki>===Discussion===</nowiki><br>
	<nowiki>:''Add any additional comments''</nowiki>
	</div>

			:Last month @] mentioned that the current process is complicated. I admit to quickly dismissed the critique as I find it easy enough and the process is used in many other places. However on your mention here it has caused me to pause and think more about it. I think this does have some merit and your proposal is slightly better than theirs. Either way it would probably result in a fundamental change to how RM are created and managed. As well as impact bots. It’s unfortunate that each of these sorts of things are handled differently depending on the area, RPP, SPA, YFA, etc. But probably still worth consideration and talking about it. Although I’m not certain what would be required as it would be a significant change to workflow and possibly impact how things are accessed and researched historically. ] ] 15:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	: Almost agree, I changed it above for you. The explanation must not be optional, and preferably should actually be longer than one sentence. :-) ] 16:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
			::I don't really see how this proposal would fundamentally alter much. OP doesn't seem to be talking about controversial moves, just generic cut-and-paste stuff. As far as I can see, all it would change if implemented is that the request button on ] would direct you to a Javascript form instead of a hidden note telling you how to list the RMassist template. ] (]) 01:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@]: That is indeed my primary intent with this, though I do also think we could make requesting moves which require discussion easier for newcomers than we currently do. ] (]) 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:On ] under "XFD", there's an RM option with "Uncontroversial technical request" available. The whole RM capability is not mentioned at ], but the functionality is referenced at ]. —] (]) 10:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::not everyone installs twinkle by default though. It is worth looking into. I have some free time this holiday, I will look into this. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, this is where I'm at on the matter. ''I'' don't have an issue initiating these requests or RMs, but based on how much difficulty some users have, we have a hump that we can help them get over in order to help with retention and reduce cut and paste moves. Thanks @], I appreciate it. ] (]) 12:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, I wasn't implying that Twinkle precludes a standalone solution. It was more FYI in case others weren't aware (I didn't even know the WP:RM/TR feature was on Twinkle). Best. —] (]) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			== I made a template in the talk page, but there is no heading in the main article. ==
	When we moved from having the votes on the WP:RM page to the talk page as you will see from the archive, I originally proposed a more proscriptive solution but the opinion at the time was that was too much ]. The format we have been using for about 9 months seems to have worked well in the vast majority of cases. Particluarly since the agreement to count the proposer as a vote in favour of the change and a 60% threshold (see ]), so no votes 100% consensus in favour of the move, one oppose 50/50 no consensus, One support and one oppose 2/3 so consensus to move.

			(]) I'm not sure why it is doing this, as according to WP:RSPM a bot should have a banner put at the top of the article. You can view my template in the article's talk page. Any feedback is appreciated! ] (]) 20:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	The recent change which ] are IMHO better but I am going to remove the header "===Polling===". The other header "===Cast votes===" had snuck in without me noticing when I cut and pasted back what I thought was the original. Having a header between the proposer and an "opinion/poll" section could re-open the argument that "No one has voted in the poll section for the change, so no change should take place". This would be a pity because many page moves do not attract many votes and keeping it simple has worked well for those moves over the last few months. The idea behind what was as a compromise, to keep instruction creep to a minimum, while making sure that an administrator can easily work out what the result is without opening up a can of worms. (see ] which sparked the ] section mentioned above). ] 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

			:I've added it manually. The bot probably didn't add it because another RM for the article had recently been closed. It only adds the banner once to avoid the bot edit warring with others. ] ] 21:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	I had an edit clash so I will also answer the last comment by kim Bruning. Yes the comment should be optional and yes it should only be one sentence long. Take a look at a vote like ] and compare that with ] to see why. ] 17:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
			::Got it. Thanks for doing that for me! ] (]) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::May I suggest in the future before starting a move discussion on an article that has multiple recent closed discussions, that you read the reasons on the prior discussion. In the case of your most recent proposal a large number of the oppose reasons also apply to your proposal as well. ] ] 06:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] Yeah, another user mentioned that to me too. I failed to recognize the anti-name change consensus and just thought it was because of the names chosen were disliked. It does seem to be that no one really wants to change the name '''at all''' as of now. ] (]) 16:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yep, no problem! I've made the same error myself. ] ] 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Several editors have been moving/discussing whether ] or ] is the proper page name ==
	The subtitle "polling" (or, earlier, "cast votes") should be kept, since it helps the actual editing process. With it, a voter (an "opinionator") needs not take the whole length into the edit window, when writing the vote. The size of edit window is important to many, with lesser net capacity. You have seen that the discussion portion could be '''somewhat''' full and long in certain cases. ] 18:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

			I created this page and moved it to article space on December 2 at Influencer. It has moved to Social media influencer and back and forth since. Discussion on the talk page suggests that a consensus has not been properly achieved and that the article should be nominated properly at RM. However, I believe an admin is needed to properly restore the page to its original location before commencing a formal RM discussion. Can we get some help in relocating the page in order to commence an RM.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	We should make a convention to admins that the proposer is counted as supporter (if not explicitly stated otherwise - there are submissions where the original proposer has forgotten to list it, but an opponent or a bystander desires to have a conclusion to a "tagging"). When closing admins know it, it should not be a problem - besides, in difficult cases, proposers themselves also seem often to register a separate vote, just to be sure. ] 18:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
			:To be clear, I just need someone to move Social media influencer back to Influencer, so that we can properly consider the page name as a RM nomination.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 05:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{resolved}}-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== When to do the actual move? ==
	I am in favor of trying to limit the main explanation - there are always people who write an "Agatha Christie" novel to give their reasons and much more else. It would be good to have main explanation of a couple of sentences, and all the else in commentaries-section. Perhaps it would be good to require at least one sentence, on the other hand. ] 18:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

			There are two details I noticed that ] doesn't cover:
	:No the sentence should remain be optional (we don't want an arguments over "That vote does not count because you did not comment"). Fair point about the block edit. However I would suggest that it could be retrofitted (like proposals are) if the discussion starts to get large. But if we have a second header as you suggest, then we ought to have a section on WP:RM explaining that in a simple vote (only 2 options) the proposal counts as a vote. Perhaps we should have that section in the article anyway and formalise the talk page. ] 18:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
			# "Write a clear, concise closing statement" explains how to write the closing statement, but not what to do with it. It should be put after the RESULT in subst:RM, not added as a comment below the discussion before the discussion is closed, right?
			# "Moving procedures" says nothing about performing the actual move itself! Presumably it be done after closing the discussion with result "Moved," not before, but noting the specific step in these instructions would be helpful.
			I'll leave it to someone who's more familiar with the process to update the instructions (if desired), or I'll update them later myself if no one objects. - ] (]) 02:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Good points / questions. For the first one, the reason has always traditionally been placed inside of the template. There have been some rare exceptions, but I have also noticed a new newer closers making this mistake -- but you would hope that before someone jumps in to do NAC that they are very experienced as a contributor and see what proper closes look like. To the second point, that is often but not always the case, sometimes when someone is doing a NAC they lack the permissions to actually perform the move, so what they do is close the discussion and then raise it over at ] so that an admin can just do the move without having to do the dirty work of determining consensus and closing discussions. ] ] 19:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	I don't like the polling section myself; I think polling should only happen when discussion is just going around in circles so much you can't gauge consensus by it, and that "support" and "oippose" is useless without explanation. I don't want to read novels for each opinion, myself, but better a novel than nothing at all. ] ] 02:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
			::The second paragraph of {{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Closing_the_requested_move}} specifically uses {{tlxs\|RM top\|'''result of the discussion'''.}} as what to do (unless I'm misinterpreting your concern from #1). ] (]) 16:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Relisting ==
	:To be honest it takes long enough to sort these requests, and to have to wade through vast discussions takes even longer. ] ] 07:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

			Has anyone else noticed the number of requests that have been relisted has gone up a lot these last few months. There are 116 relisted requests today. Compare that to 82 on this same day last year and 43 two years ago . ~~ ] (]) 15:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== 60% ==
	:See ] for how the number came to be included in the WP:RM page. ]

			:I think there is a combination of factors, including a higher number of both contentious moves, as well as a number of undiscussed requests that is triggering this. Coupled with the number of recent BADNAC as made even experienced NAC movers cautious. It's been a few years since I was an active page mover and so much has changed that I'm still only comfortable with !voting until I get all of the changes and perspectives updated in my thought process... But I might just have to jump in sooner than latter. ] ] 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	The "rough consensus (60%)" comment is laughably incorrect. I only hope that no-one is applying it. It's such an amazingly vile violation of policy that I'm surprised that I'd not noticed it before, but then I suppose I can't go around expecting people to actually understand policy and word things correctly. :-(
			:I have noticed that plenty of recently backlogged RMs have no comments at all, or very few comments. While it is within policy to close such discussions, I have noticed a tendency to wait and give it another round of relisting to attempt to improve participation. Frequent relisting might also be a reason for a vicious cycle that causes too many open requests at once, reducing overall RM participation. The last systematic study about duration of open RMs was probably ] by Colin M almost 3 years ago. And situation may have declined since that time. RMCD bot's table list shows 154 RMs to be less or equal to 7 days old and 141 RMs to be open for more than 7 days. It seems that number of RMs opened has also seen a slight increase recently, and the overall number of open discussions older than 1 week has decreased, but the number of discussions open for even longer has increased quite significantly. I see that somewhat contentious discussions as old as 10-20 or more days lay idle in backlog section without a close. <span class="nowrap">—''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 21:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== How long do Uncontroversial technical requests take? ==
	] ] 14:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

			I have a Uncontroversial technical move request on the ], may I ask on average how long does a uncontroversial technical move request take? ] (]) 06:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I don't have time to really start the discussion now, though I do hope to come back this. However, in the mean time, would you care to list which "policies" it is a violation of? The community has long resisted defining consensus. The closest we have is the "guideline" at ], which says (among other things) that 66% is the typical minimum threshold for consensus in VFD. ] 14:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
			:Noting first that this was enacted about two hours after this post was made, but second that requests are usually handled with 24-48 hours. Patience is a good thing sometimes. ] (]) 10:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			::Yeah I understand. Just wanted to ask in case I ever need to make another one. ] (]) 10:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Which policy? ] states "''Misplaced Pages:No original research is one of three content policies. The other two are "Misplaced Pages:Neutral point" of view and "Misplaced Pages:Verifiability".''

	::See the archive above but the reason for the 60% was to help administrators with a simple rule for all moves so that people could not quibble over what a "rough consensus" is. It was set at 60% because that number works well when there are only a few people (<6), expressing an opinion. Some in the previous discussion (including my self) would have liked a higher %age for larger votes but it was agreed to stick with one %age to keep the instruction creep to a minimum. I still agree with the argument presented by ] during the last discussion:
	::"''Moving a page is not nearly as "big a deal" as setting policy, deleting a page, or promoting an admin - things that do require "rough consensus". Even though the title is the most visible part of the page, changing it isn't much different from changing content - something anyone can do. In fact, most of the time, any logged in user who's not completely new can just move a page. So I don't think we need to require a high threshold for moving pages listed here.''"
	::and I agued that "''on pages like Zürich to Zurich the WP:RM serves another purpose and I think simple majority voting would not serve the wikipedia community as well consensus voting does by putting those types of debates to bed for a few months.''"--] 18:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

	== too complicated polling tools ==

	Please see what sort of voting table has been introduced into use at ]. I am quite certain that it is not from here, as RM page proposes much simpler things. I have understood that "instruction creepism" has been deemed bad by you, and you have desired to keep pollings simple. Particularly wrt what participants need to do in order to participate in the polling.

	That table itself seems a too complicated thing to me. It presumably drives from taking part in discussion to mechanical voting. (Actually, several Dutch voters in the table have not uttered anything to the discussion, so their reasons remain unclear and are not helpful to build any sort of consensus).

	Complications are a bad thing. What next: is someone entitled to demand that participants stood on their heads in order to be eligible to participate in a poll?

	I cannot avoid an impression that someone has too much technical interests (perhaps too little interest in actual substance contents), has built an elaborate table, and that results in all others being forced to be guinea pigs to use that tool. I do not oppose if someone wants to maintain an extra table to show polling situation, but tob demand participants themselves to use such goes too far. ] 15:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

	:The WP:RM request for that page was done by ] while a change in the WP:RM guidelines was in place for a day or so (see above: ]) when the new format made it difficult to see who was supporting what, Francis introduced his own polling table. Since the WP:RM page guidlines reverted back to the previouse guidlines, something made possible to do with little argument thanks to the mess on ] page, Francis has continued to use the guidlines as layed out eg the more recent ]. ] 16:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

	== History description ==

	Nitpicking alert: I note that the description of moves in the page history has changed from "PageName moved to NewPageName" to "PageName '''has been''' moved to NewPageName'''.'''" Is this an improvement? I think it reads worse - the previous version was more grammatically neutral, so it made equal sense when viewed in user contributions, recent changes, and page histories; also, the full stop at the end is just wrong. It's in ] if anyone feels like looking at it. ] ] 09:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
	:I agree, and have reverted it. ] ] 19:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
	::Sweet. ] ] 20:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

	== Possible clarification of instructions? ==

	I misunderstood part of the instructions under "copying the following is suggested". Instead of putting this text in:

	:''Add '''Support''' or '''Oppose''' followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''

	I did what it said: that is, I added '''Support''', and signed my vote. ] kindly informed me that you can't vote for your own move request, which I suppose makes sense; only, it doesn't say that anywhere in the instructions. Perhaps someone could reword the instructions slightly so that other folks don't make the mistake I did? —] 18:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
	:Maybe just template the thing, with instructions to type <nowiki>{{subst:Reqmove\|Reasons for moving - ~~~~}}</nowiki> with a couple of variants for multiple page moves or a move with multiple options? - ] 18:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

	== lots of confusion over redirect policies ==

	Dear Wikipedians: Please note, that a similar question arose for ], as arose for ]. At NBC, it was suggested that it be moved to ]. At Public Broadcasting Service, it was suggested that it be moved to PBS. '''IN EACH CASE, THE SAME JUSTIFICATION WAS GIVEN FOR COMPLETELY OPPOSITE DECISION'''. Namely, with PBS, because "Public Broadcasting Service" is "clearly predominant", that most people "know what it stands for", this is used as justification that it STAY at Public Broadcasting Service, and that PBS redirect to the full name. Yet, at the discussion at NBC, the article title "NBC" is kept because "about 99,999 people out of 100,000 will be looking for the National Broadcasting Company, not the Newfoundland Barbering Commission or the National Bowling Congress.", and "it will be the name most people are likely looking for". I believe this is evidence of one of 2 things:

	*The redirect and renaming policies are unclear or confusing.
	*The policies are clear, but people ignore them and just invoke them to support whatever they think is best.

	Which is it? ] 21:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

	== How are noncontroversial moves made? ==

	I'm sorry, but Wik is still a horrible chaos for normal users. I have been unable to find any-thing on normal moves (Misplaced Pages:moves gets re-directed hither). This article should have a link (Wik articles are usually way overloaded with links) to a straight-forward explanation of how noncontroversial moves are made. ] 04:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

	:Normal moves are made using the tab at the top of every page, between the tab and the (or ) tab. ] 04:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

	::Thank You. {{Unsigned\|Kdammers\|05:03, 25 September 2005}}

	:: Probably the instructions at the top of this page ought to mention this; I'll add it (and a link to ]) if they don't already. (I know, I know, "Instruction creep", but if we're getting questions...) ] ] 19:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

	==Repairing cut-and-paste moves==

	I've gotten a number of requests recently to help repair cut-and-paste moves, something I have some experience with. Since cut-and-paste moves (a big no-no, they separate the ] from the content, which we want to avoid for ] reasons) seems to be something that happens a fair amount, I'm going to try and rejuventate the ] to deal with them; I have signed up on ] to maintain it. I'm going to add a ''brief'' note to WP:RM mentioning it; hope that's OK. ] ] 19:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

	== Backlog ==

	I did my best to delete those requests from the list which had already been fulfilled, but that doesn't change anything about the fact that there's still a backlog of moves to be done. ] ] ] 11:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

	==Backlog redux==
	There's still a horrendous backlog here. Can I propose a couple of mechanisms that might help cut it down?
	#Make improper formulation of a request (current examples: ] and ], which are lacking the talk-page boilerplate) grounds for flagging {notmoved} after a week or so (combined with a polite note on the talk page inviting its correct relisting).
	#Place the onus on fixing "what links here" redirects, etc. on the ''person proposing the move,'' rather than on the poor overworked admin who makes the move. There are a couple of current listings with clear consensuses in favour, but a daunting amount of incoming links and redirects. Plus, the requester should be better acquainted with the subject matter and better qualified to make correct decisions on what goes where.
	Comments? ] 02:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

	Yep - I made a template for #1 - <nowiki>{{Notmovedmalformed}}</nowiki> which produces:

	{{Notmovedmalformed}}

	<small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> \| <font color="#0033FF">]</font> \| <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 08:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	About #2 - I added a bit about that. It may be a bit too much though... remove it if it is :). <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> \| <font color="#0033FF">]</font> \| <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 08:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	== Approval voting is not consensus building ==

	I question the current recommendations of this page. The idea that ] is a good way to build ] is completely flawed, especially when it's set at a measly 60%. ].

	I also question the status of this page as anything other than a user tool and a way to contact admins to help move articles that can't be moved by normal users. This page is ''not'' an arbitrator of official policy, does not hold sway over consensus achieved in pages such as WikiProjects and especially not if it works by the idea that majority decisions can decide article titles on Misplaced Pages.

	] <sup>]</sup> 22:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

	So... what do you propose? There are plenty of complaints already, and meanwhile the backlog keeps growing :\. <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> \| <font color="#0033FF">]</font> \| <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 23:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

	A page is blocked from being moved a person proposes a move. Two others express an opinion. One for one against. You are the administrator after five days do you move it or not?

	Next day a page is blocked from being moved a person proposes a move. Two others express an opinion. Both disagree with the move. You are the administrator after five days do you move it or not?

	This is a decision that the overworked administrators who look at this page have to make all the time. The 60% or more rule is simple to follow and reduces conflict for the adminstrators by giving them some protection from them being accused of acting in an abitary manner. See the history of the WP:RM talk pages for examples. It also makes WP:RM moves sticky in that a 20% change in the rough consensus has to take place before a new WP:RM request can overturn a previous one.

	Peter also look at the bottom of the WP:RM page. WP:RM activly suggests informing WikiProjects of page moves which effect pages in their domain to try to stop WP:RM being used as an underhand way to get around project guidelines. If you think that a particular WikiProject is missing which you think should be added to the list then why not add it? --] 23:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

	:If an administrator is unsure whether there is consensus or not, and all the appropriate guidelines have been weighed in, the answer is very self-evident; don't move the page. This is the standard practice in all other similar situations concerning article content or article status. The solution is ''not'' to set unacceptably low standards for what consensus actually is.
	:I've made amendments to the guidelines that actually follow the recommendations of ] and hard policies such as ]. If you look at the rewording, you'll notice that the idea that people should give proper time for discussion and consensus to build up would discourage the current system of ''first'' plopping a full-fledged vote on unsuspeciting talkpages (with a horrendously low percentage for approval). If people don't make proper attempts to discuss before requesting moves, I think admins should simply remove the request (and any attempts of voting) until this is actually done. Just demand that people actually take time to ask around, start discussions and check the proper guidelines and policies before dumping the request here to simmer Admins should not be forced to make the kind of decisions they're currently making.
	:I've also removed the 60% figure, because it has no support in the practices of Misplaced Pages in general and has nothing to do with genuine consensus building. If people demand set percentages, then they should be informed that this is not the place to enforce such standards. And, btw, I don't think that individual WikiProjects should be linked to. There's just way too many of them.
	:] <sup>]</sup> 13:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	== guidence requested ==

	OK - I took care of quite a few days, but I ran into some distintly difficult cases:
	#There was no notice/template on the talk page but there was in entry here. In this case I turned down the request
	#:did you leave a comment explaining why?
	#*There was another one like the above only this time with more approval on talk page - in this case I moved
	#:Yep I guess.
	#Another one where there was notification on the talk page, but the only comment/vote was from an anon not to move. In this case I didn't move it.
	#:I think you should have moved it. But as the administrator who delt with it I support your decision.
	#One where an anon nominated but a logged in user with a comment from several months ago disagreed
	#:I would not have moved it. ] 09:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	Some of the above has drawn strong complaints. What would you do :)? <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> \| <font color="#0033FF">]</font> \| <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 02:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	For the first one I made the template outlined above (but on the requests in question just gave an explanation). Thanks a million for your thoughts/opinions! <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> \| <font color="#0033FF">]</font> \| <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 09:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	==ch-ch-changes==

	===How big should the introduction be===

	See previous debates on this talk page about this. I am in favour of keeping the introduction as short a possible otherwise the trees get lost in the wood. ] 14:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	:Well, on AfD they move stuff to subpage. Maybe we could have something like ] if it gets too big? Otherwise I agree of course.... <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> \| <font color="#0033FF">]</font> \| <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 15:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	===Should Current notices be in a sub page===

	I am of a mind that they should remain on this page otherwise this page does not get monitored like it should and probably does not get read. It has the effect of removing the instructions form the action. ] 14:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	Hmmm.... I was going for an AfD-style layout. Someone suggested a subpage for content too on ]. <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> \| <font color="#0033FF">]</font> \| <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 14:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	I'm not sure that AFD has anything to reccomend it. ] 14:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	:Ryan, the AfD-style layout isn't bad, but it doesn't seem necessary as long as the backlog doesn't get absolutely overwhelming. I'd prefer to have the requests on the same page until it ''really'' starts to get huge.
	:Philip, I'm not sure this kind of discussion granulating is especially helpful. If you only have a few sentances worth of post, just keep it under one header.
	:] <sup>]</sup> 14:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	:I did it because they are two distinct issues. I agree with you on keeping the requests on the same page. But do you agree with me that the introduction should be kept short and susinct? (please relply to that in the section above) ] 15:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

	===#History merges===
	The reason I removed that is because its in the admin instructions... right now it doesn't point to anything. Maybe that part needs to be here someplace (maybe it's not admin-specific?)? <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> \| <font color="#0033FF">]</font> \| <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 15:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
	:Well, I fixed that link to point to the admin page. A little clumsy, but it works. <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> \| <font color="#0033FF">]</font> \| <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 15:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:07, 10 January 2025

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled until March 26, 2025 at 04:13 UTC.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

This is the talk page for discussing Requested moves and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:RM

NOTE: This is not the place to request moves. Please follow the instructions given on the project page. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the closing instructions.

Please use the Misplaced Pages:Move review process for contested move request closes.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, most subpages of Misplaced Pages:Requested moves that are unused have talk pages that redirect here.

This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, No consensus, 7 June 2007
RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Proposed moves, Not moved, 11 February 2018
RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Articles for renaming, Not moved, 19 September 2018
RM, WP:Requested moves → WP:Requested title changes, Not moved, 22 July 2024

Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search" Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

Administrators' noticeboard/Move requests (2005)
For why RM was created, see:
- requested moves -- policy change?

Archives by date

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Move Virginia High School (Virginia) to Virginia High School

The them "Virginia High School" previously served as the title of a disambiguation page, currently at Virginia High School (disambiguation). However, it currently redirects to Virginia High School (Virginia) as this seems to be the primary use of the term as information about Virginia High School (Minnesota) seems to be sparse and out of date. Secondary sources indicate the Minnesota institution might actually be named "Virginia Secondary School". Bernardgeorgeh (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

First reaction is that this was a bad idea to change before discussing it, but that is still acceptable. At the very least, you need a hat note so people can find the other school, and them I would suggest opening a RM formally for the Minnesota school, given that passes, then that would clear the way for an RM to make the school in Virgina for probably PT and drop the PARENDIS. Either way theirs is a question for discussion if the PrimaryRedirect is appropriate. TiggerJay (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Broadly agree; it's not worth reverting the dab move just yet, but an RM will certainly make sure there is consensus that it was the right move. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like @Nardog performed a revert of the redirect, so it now goes to the DAB page once again. @Bernardgeorgeh if you still believe the move has merit, you're welcome to start a WP:RM discussion in the appropriate way. TiggerJay (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Move VP-40 (1951-present) to VP-40 in place of redirect page

{{subst:requested move|VP-40|reason=The current page for the modern squadron VP-40 occupies the page VP-40 (1951-Present). It should be moved to the page VP-40 to match the uniformity of other squadron pages however VP-40 is currently a redirect page}} Chilichongoes (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chilichongoes: This is because there are/were two squadrons by the name VP-40. So, the squadron meeting WP:Primary topic criteria will stay at VP-40, the other will be disambiguated using the parentheses. You will need to present a case of why the current VP-40 is the primary topic over the older one. Then, the other editors will deliberate over it, and a conclusion will be reached. —CX Zoom 18:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Request: Implement a form for requests at WP:RM/TR

As part of my work at NPP, I review a lot of redirects, often working from the back of the queue. Pages which are turned into redirects by users who are not autopatrolled are automatically put into the queue for review, and I find a lot of cut and paste moves happening, which I of course revert and leave warnings about. These aren't just from newer users either unfortunately, and I've been thinking for a while that it could be easier to request page moves.

Which leads me to my suggestion: There should be a form, similar to those at WP:RFPP (direct link to a form), to make requesting the moves simpler and more straightforward. Let's face it, some people are offput by trying to use the template, and why not make life easier? I believe this would reduce the issues we have with cut and paste moves and make it easier to direct newer users to make such requests. Suggested fields would be current page title, target page title, reason for move.

I'd also be for making requested moves easier in a similar fashion, because I do think we'd make Misplaced Pages easier to get into with more form usage, but I figure one step at a time. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Last month @RaschenTechner mentioned that the current process is complicated. I admit to quickly dismissed the critique as I find it easy enough and the process is used in many other places. However on your mention here it has caused me to pause and think more about it. I think this does have some merit and your proposal is slightly better than theirs. Either way it would probably result in a fundamental change to how RM are created and managed. As well as impact bots. It’s unfortunate that each of these sorts of things are handled differently depending on the area, RPP, SPA, YFA, etc. But probably still worth consideration and talking about it. Although I’m not certain what would be required as it would be a significant change to workflow and possibly impact how things are accessed and researched historically. TiggerJay (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see how this proposal would fundamentally alter much. OP doesn't seem to be talking about controversial moves, just generic cut-and-paste stuff. As far as I can see, all it would change if implemented is that the request button on WP:RM/TR would direct you to a Javascript form instead of a hidden note telling you how to list the RMassist template. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nohomersryan: That is indeed my primary intent with this, though I do also think we could make requesting moves which require discussion easier for newcomers than we currently do. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

On Twinkle under "XFD", there's an RM option with "Uncontroversial technical request" available. The whole RM capability is not mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Twinkle/doc, but the functionality is referenced at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_42#RM_requests. —Bagumba (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

not everyone installs twinkle by default though. It is worth looking into. I have some free time this holiday, I will look into this. – robertsky (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is where I'm at on the matter. I don't have an issue initiating these requests or RMs, but based on how much difficulty some users have, we have a hump that we can help them get over in order to help with retention and reduce cut and paste moves. Thanks @Robertsky, I appreciate it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't implying that Twinkle precludes a standalone solution. It was more FYI in case others weren't aware (I didn't even know the WP:RM/TR feature was on Twinkle). Best. —Bagumba (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I made a template in the talk page, but there is no heading in the main article.

(2025 New Orleans truck attack) I'm not sure why it is doing this, as according to WP:RSPM a bot should have a banner put at the top of the article. You can view my template in the article's talk page. Any feedback is appreciated! Therguy10 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I've added it manually. The bot probably didn't add it because another RM for the article had recently been closed. It only adds the banner once to avoid the bot edit warring with others. SilverLocust 💬 21:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for doing that for me! Therguy10 (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

May I suggest in the future before starting a move discussion on an article that has multiple recent closed discussions, that you read the reasons on the prior discussion. In the case of your most recent proposal a large number of the oppose reasons also apply to your proposal as well. TiggerJay (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay Yeah, another user mentioned that to me too. I failed to recognize the anti-name change consensus and just thought it was because of the names chosen were disliked. It does seem to be that no one really wants to change the name at all as of now. Therguy10 (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, no problem! I've made the same error myself. TiggerJay (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Several editors have been moving/discussing whether Influencer or Social media influencer is the proper page name

I created this page and moved it to article space on December 2 at Influencer. It has moved to Social media influencer and back and forth since. Discussion on the talk page suggests that a consensus has not been properly achieved and that the article should be nominated properly at RM. However, I believe an admin is needed to properly restore the page to its original location before commencing a formal RM discussion. Can we get some help in relocating the page in order to commence an RM.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I just need someone to move Social media influencer back to Influencer, so that we can properly consider the page name as a RM nomination.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

When to do the actual move?

There are two details I noticed that Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions doesn't cover:

"Write a clear, concise closing statement" explains how to write the closing statement, but not what to do with it. It should be put after the RESULT in subst:RM, not added as a comment below the discussion before the discussion is closed, right?
"Moving procedures" says nothing about performing the actual move itself! Presumably it be done after closing the discussion with result "Moved," not before, but noting the specific step in these instructions would be helpful.

I'll leave it to someone who's more familiar with the process to update the instructions (if desired), or I'll update them later myself if no one objects. - Brian Kendig (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Good points / questions. For the first one, the reason has always traditionally been placed inside of the template. There have been some rare exceptions, but I have also noticed a new newer closers making this mistake -- but you would hope that before someone jumps in to do NAC that they are very experienced as a contributor and see what proper closes look like. To the second point, that is often but not always the case, sometimes when someone is doing a NAC they lack the permissions to actually perform the move, so what they do is close the discussion and then raise it over at WP:RM/TR so that an admin can just do the move without having to do the dirty work of determining consensus and closing discussions. TiggerJay (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The second paragraph of Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions § Closing the requested move specifically uses {{subst:RM top|result of the discussion.}} as what to do (unless I'm misinterpreting your concern from #1). Primefac (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisting

Has anyone else noticed the number of requests that have been relisted has gone up a lot these last few months. There are 116 relisted requests today. Compare that to 82 on this same day last year and 43 two years ago . ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a combination of factors, including a higher number of both contentious moves, as well as a number of undiscussed requests that is triggering this. Coupled with the number of recent BADNAC as made even experienced NAC movers cautious. It's been a few years since I was an active page mover and so much has changed that I'm still only comfortable with !voting until I get all of the changes and perspectives updated in my thought process... But I might just have to jump in sooner than latter. TiggerJay (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that plenty of recently backlogged RMs have no comments at all, or very few comments. While it is within policy to close such discussions, I have noticed a tendency to wait and give it another round of relisting to attempt to improve participation. Frequent relisting might also be a reason for a vicious cycle that causes too many open requests at once, reducing overall RM participation. The last systematic study about duration of open RMs was probably Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves/Archive 34#Size of RM backlog over time by Colin M almost 3 years ago. And situation may have declined since that time. RMCD bot's table list shows 154 RMs to be less or equal to 7 days old and 141 RMs to be open for more than 7 days. It seems that number of RMs opened has also seen a slight increase recently, and the overall number of open discussions older than 1 week has decreased, but the number of discussions open for even longer has increased quite significantly. I see that somewhat contentious discussions as old as 10-20 or more days lay idle in backlog section without a close. —CX Zoom 21:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

How long do Uncontroversial technical requests take?

I have a Uncontroversial technical move request on the 126th Armed Police Mobile Division (People's Republic of China), may I ask on average how long does a uncontroversial technical move request take? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Noting first that this was enacted about two hours after this post was made, but second that requests are usually handled with 24-48 hours. Patience is a good thing sometimes. Primefac (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I understand. Just wanted to ask in case I ever need to make another one. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)